On Saturday morning, a Tweet from Brookings caught my eye. It suggested “Longevity Annuities” would be a great solution to the post-pension problem of longevity risk. This is such an unbelievably bad idea that my first thought was that some insurance company had corrupted Brookings. I see no evidence of that, however. It’s probably just a case of two Hamilton Project thinkers who are overly in love with private industry solutions to truly public problems.

The problem is that American employers have stopped offering pensions and Social Security benefits are too low to guaranty a reasonable standard of living for retired workers. The next generation of retirees will have only what they have saved through tax-deferred 401(k) and IRA accounts. A pension is a promise for life. If you get an extra 10 or 15 years on this genetic joyride and you have a pension, you’re covered. A savings account has limits and can be outlived. The only guaranteed, market independent, income stream that retirees can count on is Social Security and Social Security benefits are meager both on an absolute basis and when judged by what people pay into the system.

One way to make sure you don’t outlive your savings is to use the money to buy an annuity, which is a lifelong stream of payments in exchange for surrendering the principal to the investment company (usually an insurance company) who set it up. There are variations on the theme, but that’s the basic trade-off. You retire at 65 and hand over your savings in exchange for income. The company who sells you this product charges you fees and also tries to invest in such a way that they make more money than they have to pay you. If you die young, the investment manager wins.

A “longevity annuity” takes advantage of compounding over time by delaying the payment stream. If you’re 60 and you buy one, it doesn’t start paying until you’re 80. The idea here is that you know if you live a very long life that you will always have a paycheck. But if you die before 80 or soon after reaching 80, you have basically handed your estate to an insurance company for nothing. Obviously, talented actuaries set the prices for all these products. As in Vegas, the house always wins in aggregate, though your individual experience may vary. The Brookings study says that half of 60-year-old longevity annuity buyers will never see a single payment. I’m amazed that Brookings would endorse an investment product with coin toss odds.

No doubt, longevity is a real issue for financial planners. Over the last 15 years, mutual fund companies have offered target date retirement funds that gradually move your investments from stocks to bonds as your approach retirement. The best, from Fidelity, Vanguard and T. Rowe Price, are low-fee, well constructed and just generally decent. But T. Rowe stands out for moving more slowly into bonds on the assumption that most of its clients will live longer than they think. As equities are riskier but offer higher returns, T. Rowe’s planners believe that people should own more stocks than they think, even years after they stop working.

But the real solution here has nothing to do with investment and insurance companies. The problem of longevity past work is something that the market has not solved. Pensions were a decent solution but companies have stopped offering them. Market based solutions like tax sheltered 401(k) and IRA has advantages but they shift risk entirely to the individual. If you deplete a 401(k) account and still have years to live, you are in penury.

When markets fail, the government should step in. Rather than pushing costly annuity products, Brookings should be advocating for a massive expansion of the Social Security system. Payouts should immediately double and then, going forward, the inflation adjustment of payments should accelerate with the age of the recipient so that you get a larger and larger payout for living longer.

Another option would be to help people keep their nest eggs longer. Right now, you get to make tax-deductible contributions to a 401(k) or IRA plan. You pay taxes when you withdraw money in retirement. Because, as a retiree, your income is lower than it was when you were working, you pay a lower tax rate than you would have paid had you never contributed the money to your savings account. That’s nifty. But we could change the law to exempt all retirement savings from taxation. If retirees can withdraw their money tax free, their savings will last longer. Also, we could eliminate taxation of Social Security benefits, even if the retiree has another source of income. So, there you go -- expand Social Security and eliminate taxes on retirement savings and you won’t need expensive and restrictive longevity annuities.

Paying for this, by the way, would be simple: a small transaction tax levied on the stock, bond, and exchange traded futures and options markets would cover the costs nicely. The Brookings plan shunts fees towards Wall Street. My plan taxes Wall Street for everybody’s benefit.

Comments

That's not really a workable solution. Kindness is often not reciprocated. I advocate clear accounting with the kids signing loan documents. "So you're hungry? Well do you have enough money to pay for supper? Just sign this loan document and you can have an apple." With the payments to begin in 20 years. That way if the kids are ungrateful bastards their wages can be garnished.

Search form

In the News

In the summer of 2016, as WikiLeaks was publishing documents from Democratic operatives allegedly obtained by Kremlin-directed hackers, Julian Assange turned down a large cache of documents related to the Russian government WikiLeaks in its early years published a broad scope of information, including emails belonging to Sarah Palin and Scientologists, phone records of Peruvian politicians, and inside information from surveillance companies. But by 2016, WikiLeaks had switched course, focusing almost exclusively on Clinton and her campaign.

WASHINGTON — Kara Young, a biracial model who dated Donald J. Trump for two years before he married another model named Melania Knauss, remembers clearly bringing up her race with the real estate tycoon early in their relationship. As with so many issues, he steered the conversation to celebrity.

Trump tweeted about his sadness over the loss of "beautiful" Confederate statues. He again equated a man who fought to create the United States with a man who knowingly fought o destroy the United States. Robert E. Lee could have led the Union Army. His sister's son fought for the Union. 40% of Virginia fought for the Union. Robert E. Lee chose to be a terrorist.

Trump champions the "Lost Cause". It is not surprising that he is unaware of why many of these Confederate statues were erected. Take the Robert E. Lee statue in Baltimore as an example. The statue was erected in 1948. The statue was meant to intimidate black soldiers and sailors returning home from World War II. It served as a reminder to those black men and women that white people were still in control

“Our country’s greatest strengths are the diversity of its people and the principles of equal dignity and inclusion that unite us all. There are troubling events planned in our state in the coming weeks. This is an incredibly painful and difficult time for millions of Californians. For those who are wondering where we stand – the ACLU of California fully supports the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom to peacefully assemble. We review each request for help on a case-by-case basis, but take the clear position that the First Amendment does not protect people who incite or engage in violence. If white supremacists march into our towns armed to the teeth and with the intent to harm people, they are not engaging in activity protected by the United States Constitution.

There were no decent people marching alongside the white supremacists and Nazis. Decent people cannot work in the Trump White House. If you support Trump, you support a racist. You are an enabler. If you work for Trump, you work for a Nazi sympathizer, you are an enabler. Jewish people who work for Trump are working for a man who encourages anti-Semites. Blacks who work for Trump work for a racist who is attacking the black community. Hispanics who work for Trump work for a bigot who called Mexicans racists.

There are no decent political people hired by Trump working in the White House. (General staff like maintenance, kitchen staff, etc are excluded)

WASHINGTON — The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement is off to a rocky start.

The Trump administration lectured Canada and Mexico on the failures of the current agreement at an opening news conference Wednesday morning, while behind closed doors negotiators began to seek significant concessions from America’s neighbors.

“We feel that Nafta has fundamentally failed many, many Americans and needs major improvement,” said Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative, who is leading the United States team aiming to overhaul the 25-year-old agreement [....]

Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao stood shoulder-to-shoulder Tuesday with President Donald Trump, the same man who railed against her husband, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, last week and demanded that the lawmaker "get back to work" on health care."I stand by my man -- both of them," Chao said, when asked by reporters what she thought of her boss's criticism of her husband.

A Los Angeles-based tech company is resisting a federal demand for more than 1.3 million IP addresses to identify visitors to a website set up to coordinate protests on Inauguration Day — a request whose breadth the company says violates the Constitution.